Slashdot Mirror
Saturn's Rings Are Ancient
gardenermike writes "Analysis of data from the Cassini probe suggests that Saturn's rings may be billions of years old, rather than the previously surmised millions. Previous research suggested that the rings were young, because of the lack of dark dust accumulation on their surfaces. However, the latest data suggests that the ring surfaces are even younger than previously thought, meaning, ironically, that the rings themselves are much older: they are not static enough to collect dust, but rather are continuously recycling material, with clumps continuously forming and disintegrating."
Think of it like your skin: it is replaced over the course of a month, so you skin is never more than a month old. But you as a whole are quite a bit lder than one month. (either that or you a a genius child).
No, just cashing in on the joke. I've actually been following Cassini from the get-go, and I'm fascinated by what's turned up.
A century or two ago, my school sent me to the last AAAS meeting in Toronto and I got to see the live data feed from the JPL when Voyager sent back those "braided" ring pictures. Right in the room, almost as fast as they arrived, two or three scientists figured out that a pair of shepherding moons might be responsible for the braiding. They were right, as it turned out.
There was more amazing science on display at that conference than I've ever seen in my life.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Just because there is evidence that rings could be ancient, doesn't mean that they are. They could still go through this recycling process and still be formed by cometary impacts at a time later than the planetary formation phase.
Saturn's rings smell like licorice, according to the probe. This comes as a shock, since the scientific consensus has been that they'd smell almost precisely like a wet dog.
Overwhelming majority of features in the solar system are at least a billion years old. Anything younger should have obvious signs of recent formation. For the Rings of Saturn, we would expect to see some rocks still settling into circular orbit, remainder of the disintegrating satellite or at least markedly non-uniform size of composing rocks. So how did the scientists come up with this unlikely hypothesis of the rings having just formed by astronomical time scale in the first place? Even (primitive) life on Earth probably existing for millions of years.
(click the link for more great examples of Kevin Hovind's logic and reasoning)
I rather doubt the solar wind plays much role in "cleaning" up any dust here.
The mechanisms suggested here don't appear to be so much like a massive fan or a Cosmic Roomba but rather as a VERY LARGE agitator.
The research isn't necessarily suggesting the rings are ancient. It's saying our reasons for thinking the rings are young aren't as sound anymore. Basically, up until recently for a variety of reasons we thought the rings were young because our understanding led us to the belief that these rings ought to collapse rather soon (either into Saturn or its moons).
But now we're thinking there are forces which clump and forces which stir up. These work together more or less to recycle the material of the rings themselves. This leads researchers to believe the rings aren't necessarily going to collapse any time soon and indeed may be far older than we originally thought.
If "birth" of an apple is when it falls from a tree and you see one dropping (but you didn't see it fall and you have no idea where the branch is), you conclude it's "young". You know it's going to hit the ground soon and you know no matter where the branch is, it's not that far up and the apple only goes down. However, if all of a sudden you see a geyser blow and shoot that apple back up again.. and again... and again... you start to realize you really don't have any idea when it first fell off the tree.